[Talk-GB] Fw: Appeal for Help - Amending a Route Relation - NCN Route 51

Peter Neale nealepb at yahoo.co.uk
Fri Dec 20 15:55:26 UTC 2019


Having unexpectedly found myself with a spare hour,  I have had a go at amending NCN 51 in central Milton Keynes. 
There are 3 Changesets involved:
#78646743. The main changes. I marked this to be reviewed,  but I do hope that nobody wants it reverted because I got a bit carried away.  As part of the edit I had to correct a one-way road that isn't really one-way,  but I then carried on resolving issues flagged by the iD editor; sorry!
#78651993.  Mopping up. After the main edit, I spotted a few ways that I had not removed from the relation, so removed them here. 
#78647795. I have flagged some ways with "fixme". They were part of the old route, but now form a spur off the main route. I have asked Sustrans whether they consider the spur to be part of NCN 51 and await their response. I could tag them with "approach", but I'm not clear whether that would mean that all >1000 other ways in the relation would then have to be tagged "main ".
Open for comments / suggestions.
Regards, Peter

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android 
 
   ----- Forwarded message ----- From: "Peter Neale" <nealepb at yahoo.co.uk> To: "Talk-gb OSM List" <talk-gb at openstreetmap.org> Cc:  Sent: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 at 13:54 Subject: Fw: [Talk-GB] Appeal for Help - Amending a Route Relation - NCN Route 51  Many thanks to @Richard Fairhurst, @Warin and @ Paul Berry for their encouragement and help.  I will have a go at making the amendments using the iD Editor.  
I'm not sure how soon that will happen, though, as I hear that Christmas is coming and Grandads like me are meant to spend time with their families, not on the computer.
Before I start, I have one more question:
@Richard Fairhurst said, "It's more important that the route is unambiguous,  i.e. the member ways all join to form a single route without unnecessary branches and loops."
However, the Sustrans map shows some dead-end branches (presumably to link into other infrastructure, such as roads and other cyclepaths).  There are 2 that are relevant here; one is marked on the ground (probably because it was part of the old route), but the other is not.  I do not propose to include the unmarked one, but what about the one that is marked?  Should I include it, or not?  
Regards,Peter


    
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20191220/5acd4165/attachment.html>


More information about the Talk-GB mailing list